The question has wide ramifications for our schools’ sports programs, outdoor adventures organized for youth groups, children’s play facilities and other such enterprises.

Our court had refused to recognize the waiver at issue in the case we reviewed because a Supreme Court precedent had pretty firmly established such a waiver was not to be given effect. So, we allowed a lawsuit against a children’s play facility to proceed, even though the parents of the child who suffered an injury had signed a waiver of any right to sue.

I heralded our approach as an illustration of “judicial restraint”; even though the judges on our panel felt the Supreme Court ruling was wrong, we were compelled to follow it and we did so.

Arguing for changes

At the same time, in the column and in my opinion on the case, I argued either the Supreme Court or the Legislature should step in and “fix” the bad law.

My point was parents should be allowed to waive their children’s right to sue, so businesses and nonprofits could continue to offer recreational opportunities without risking litigation.

I am happy to report our system of law works. In response to our decision and to the arguments of others, for example, a Press editorial, the Michigan Legislature enacted a law this spring requiring courts to enforce parental waivers. So, the organizers of sports programs and other similar activities can go about their business without the risk of litigation.

New law is much better

Passage of the new law no doubt followed committee and floor testimony and debate about the issue, where people with different viewpoints could have their say.

The enacted law obviously was polished and honed to meet valid concerns — as a majority of the people’s representatives weighed them. For example, it allows waivers only for injuries resulting from the “inherent risks of a recreational activity,” not injuries arising out of the negligence of persons who organize an activity.

This was an appropriate matter for the Legislature, rather than the courts, to finally resolve.

Court proceedings necessarily involve a limited number or interests, those of the litigants at hand. In contrast, the open legislative process provides an opportunity for anyone with a perspective on an important issue like this to have their say and help solve problems.

The system works

Often, people can be cynical about their government and the way it works. Often, there is plenty of reason for that. But, we also should take the time and effort to notice it when, as here, our three branches of government work together to enact and enforce sensible solutions to the problems we together face.

Most of the world would love to have the rule of law we enjoy and this one case illustrates why we can be proud of it.

Richard Bandstra is the chief legal counsel to Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette.